On Saturday 03 November 2007, dann frazier wrote: > Here's an updated patch that implements Joey's suggestion of extending > mirror/udeb/suite to support multiple suites. Again I've omitted the > indention of the inner loop to make it clear what has changed. Has this been tested? > What I don't like about it: > * I'd prefer mirror/udeb/suites to mirror/udeb/suite, but I don't think > its a good enough reason to break an interface that's already part of > a stable release. One option would be to deprecate the singular > version, but support it for one more release - in the meantime we > could use one as an alias for the other, giving precedence to the > plural version. Agreed. The build system relies on m/u/suite for daily builds though so having a solid compatibility fallback for some time is essential. Doubt it will be used widely elsewhere, and if it is, it should be tivial to fix by the persons using it. Testing m/u/suites first and, if empty/non-existant, m/u/suite next should be sufficient. > * I don't like how nested things are getting; if this is accepted, > I'd probably want to follow up with a patch that moves some of the > inner code into its own function. Agreed. > * It doesn't solve the issue Frans highlighted about components > coming from separate mirrors. A proper solution for that problem > would probably involve letting users preseed with arbitrary sets of > sources.list style entries, meaning components can be fetched from > multiple types of media within one installation instance. That'd > certainly be a better paradigm, but would require much more > invasive changes. I don't really like the idea of leaving this open if we're going to make changes here anyway. OTOH... > + is available from multiple places, anna's current behavior is to use > + the last one, not necessarily the one with the greatest version. This is completely broken of course if we want to use this for experimental as that _can_ have older versions than the real suite being used. Regarding the removal of this comment: > - # Setting codename to a suite is not very nice, but can do no harm > if ! db_get mirror/udeb/suite || [ -z "$RET" ]; then > if [ -f /etc/udebs-source ]; then Note that what you are doing now is just the opposite: in the _default_ situation the contents of /etc/udebs-source is used and that _is_ a codename (set at D-I images build time). All the rest are the exceptions! This should at least remain clear from the code or comments.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.